I just bought a new Fuji S5. I got the package delivered this morning, I was so excited! I spent the last 3 hours playing with all the settings and buttons, trying to figure it out. I was just going to upload some of my first pictures because I was so excited!

Well, downloaded my card to my computer, and in ACR all my files look underexposed. I made sure I did not have the auto settings checked. So, I took a couple test shots. I set my camera to RAW and took one picture, then to jpeg and took another picture. The jpeg looks fine, but the raw looks under exposed. So, I opened up lightroom, and the raw looks fine! I do not have the auto adjustments turned on either Lightroom or Photoshop. I am using CS2, is that the problem? Do I need CS3?
Here is an example of what I am talking about. Thise images are right out of the camera, no processing....

I have been hearing that most who use an s5 do so because they prefer jpegs and the camera does an excellent job with those......but its hear say
ask D Duggan he loves his

Yes, that is why I first got interested in fuji... I was planning on shooting in jpeg. But then I found the benifits of RAW, and there is no going back for me! (At least right now...).

I think I have found that CS2 does not support the S5. I think I have to edit in LR or upgrade to CS3. The problem I have is I always use bridge to view and delete the bloopers. I have a hard time telling if images are sharp enough in LR, so I edit out the ones that are not sharp in Bridge first. Hmmm..... I am not sure if I just need to upgrade to CS3, or if I should just stick with LR for now.

Kari, I shoot RAW with my S5 and CS2. I think I have learned the camera in and out and how it exposes. I will typically overexpose just a hair to get it where I want it to be. I have really loved this camera. What do you have the settings set at?

By "settings" do you mean the color, sharpness and such? I have everyting set to standard, standard, standard. I did extensive testing with my S3, and that is what I liked, so I just transfered that to the S5 until I can test it more. I was under the impression that it didn't matter what those settings were if you shoot RAW.

I'M FAMOUS!!!!!!! Life is good!

Ok, I was playing with it some more, and my problem was gone.... "Hmmm".... I thought, "How could that be?" So, I started looking at the meta data. Well, I did some tests in 800 ISO, and in 1600 ISO, and the ones with 1600 ISO were the files that didn't show up right in CS2. Could it be that CS2 doesn't read the high ISO files of the S5 Well?

Wait, so you can open S5 RAW files in CS2? I thought you couldn't and had to either get lightroom or CS3? Am I missing something?

Yes, I guess you can open them, but as you can see I am having trouble with it.

There is a big difference between different raw converters - more so with something like the S5, which is completely different from any other camera.

The one thing you should notice about your sample shots is that while the jpg and LR raw files are brighter, they have also blown out the highlights. (I would consider them overexposed.) The whole purpose of the S5 is to capture a wider dynamic range.

So the question is whether applying a curve to the ACR file lets you bring up the dark tones without adding too much noise (and, of course, while keeping your highlights). I'm sure you'll find out that you can - that's the advantage of the S5 over any other camera.

I will find my settings and post them..I don't know if that will help or not

Right now I am not too concerned about the exposure on this particular image. I was just running a couple test shots. What I AM concerned with is the inconsistancy of the same image, in LR and ACR. I bounce back and forth between the two programs in my workflow. I Need the two to be the same, or I need to change my workflow. If I have to upgrade to CS3, that is what I need to do. But, I was just surprised when I opened all my files in bridge, and the RAW files were darker than I expected, as if they were underexposed. You should see the ones I took of my black dog. I could not see any detail in her fur at all. But, they were fine in LR. I know I could lift them in processing in ACR, but I would rather not. I want it to be right in ACR.... I think I need to buy CS3. What I am wondering is if that will solve my problem.

First, you might have LR set to apply some kind of preset (camera or auto or whatever). But it might be that they use different raw conversion engines, in which case they will always give different baseline results.

But the most important point is that there's no such thing as a file looking "right" before post processing. Every shot needs post processing of some kind. What's important is how they look at the end of the workflow.

And that's even more true with the S5. We are used to seeing images from cameras that have very small contrast ratios - and from photographers who are willing to blow out their highlights. Sometimes that's unavoidable - or a tradeoff to reduce noise in the darker tones - but too often it's because photographers are too lazy to do the post processing.

The S5 lets you have both: highlight detail and low shadow noise. But just like with film in the darkroom, where you have to decide the paper and processing to use to get the contrast ratio and tonality you want in the final print, with digital, you have to decide during the post processing the same things. The S5 is giving you files with more information than you are used to - not bad ones. Your jpg and LR examples just sacrifice everything that the S5 is giving you over other cameras.

The only other option is to shoot jpg and use the camera settings to get the best results you can - but that's not nearly as much control you have with your post processing.

Why does every shot need some sort of post processing (maybe with the exception of sharpening) if you nail your exposure, color, and contrast?

Because there is almost no scene in real life that has the tonal range and color that you want in the final image. That is the entire point of post-processing - not to correct things that weren't done right, but to translate the real life scene both artistically and to fit the limitations of the technology (the camera and the printing or display process).

No film shooter would ever have said "my contact sheets look ok, so I'm going to print all my images at the same setting."

Even in a studio, where you have a great deal of control over the lighting, you can't fine tune as much as you need to.

I don't have any preset or auto set in lightroom...

I am not talking about looking "right" as in finished... I am talking about looking right as in the exposure of what I thought it looked. I had to lift the exposure almost 2/3 stop on my CS2 files, to bring them to the correct exposure. The fact that they didn't match my jpegs with the same settings (by matching, I don't mean exactly, I meant he exposure should look the same) and they did match the jpeg on the LCD and in lightroom makes me think that there is a problem with CS2 reading my file correctly.


I can post process my RAW files the way I want, but I want them to be a correct exposture out of the camera.

I have been over in DP review on the Fuji SLR forum, and some one else said that they have heard this problem before... RAW files looking to DARK to start in CS2. So, I guess my option is to process in Lightroom, or upgrade to CS3.

The raw image you posted is much better than the other two because it has all the image information. It is the image that has the best exposure out of the camera. It's just that the scene has too much contrast to be able to be displayed or printed without losing shadow detail - which is why you need to apply a curve to it to compress the contrast range. All that happened in the other two images is that the exposure was increased linearly and clipped the highlights - something that photographers should never settle for.

Ok John...
I am not sure why I feel i have to defend my self here... I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE EXPOSURE! To show you what I am talking about, I am going to upload one more test for you to see. (I have white socks on today ) This one, I shot in JPEG + RAW. It is clearly not over exposed. (Maybe even a little under) I metered this with a hand held light meter. So, the jpeg and RAW file are the same capture. See what CS2 is doing to my file? I used auto white balance on this... These are straight out of the camera!

Why do you think it's what CS2 is doing versus what LR is doing? Whatever their default settings are are just that - default settings that have no bearing on your exposure or the correct exposure or anything else. In the first example, the CS2 image was the best one by far because it had the most dynamic range.

And it's the same situation for the jpg. There's no way to compare that jpg with anything unless you also specify the camera settings that were used - and even then it's just a relative indicator. Manufacturers know that people prefer blown highlights and high contrast images to flat ones, so they bias their jpg processing to match (and consumer printers and places like Walmart etc. do the same thing).

Even when I shoot jpg, I always shoot with the contrast, saturation, and sharpening turned down - and "underexpose" if necessary in order to make sure I keep my highlights.

And one more point: I don't know whether the relationship between the two types of pixels on the S5 is fixed in the raw file by the contrast setting on the camera or not (in other words, whether it's a hardware function or a function of the in-camera or raw processing). If it's done in software, then that gives you much more flexibility with the raw file - but it also means the raw file can't possibly be set the way you want it to be right out of the camera.

I'm sure there are some S5 raw gurus out there.